Dear Barack, Spare Me Your E-Mails

Posted on Dec 9, 2009

Barack Obama’s faux populism is beginning to grate, and when yet another one of those “we the people” e-mails from the president landed on my screen as I was fishing around for a column subject, I came unglued. It is one thing to rob us blind by rewarding the power elite that created our problems but quite another to sugarcoat it in the rhetoric of a David taking on those Goliaths.

In each of the three most important areas of policy with which he has dealt, Obama speaks in the voice of the little people’s champion, but his actions cater fully to the demands of the most powerful economic interests.

With his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, he has given the military-industrial complex an excuse for the United States to carry on in spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, without a credible military adversary in sight. His response to the banking meltdown was to continue George W. Bush’s massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, and his health care reform has all the earmarks of a boondoggle for the medical industry profiteers.

Health reform was the subject of Obama’s Tuesday e-mail, which proclaimed in its heading, “We will not back down.” Addressing me by my first name, which I assume is in acknowledgment that I, like the millions of other suckers with whom he so intimately corresponds, had contributed to his campaign, he began with a clarion call for yet another contribution, this time to donate.barackobama.com/FinalStretch.

“As we head into the final stretch of health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo. So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

But we, following him, have already backed down. Does the president not recall that he began his health care reform effort by ingratiating himself with the insurance lobbyists in taking “single payer” off the table on day one? The insurers are not really upset with what may survive as a minuscule public option, for they have won the big prize: Everyone must buy insurance from them under penalty of law, and there will be no built-in requirement for cost control. Their so-called opposition to the current plans has to do with fine-tuning the president’s guarantee of their future profits.

The same contradiction between progressive rhetoric and big-business giveaways was on display, also on Tuesday, when Obama addressed the economic crisis. Speaking at the Brookings Institution, an Establishment think tank that helped craft the radical financial deregulation of the Clinton years, Obama blamed Republicans for the mess. He thundered against “an opposition party, which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve.”

Rubbish. It was Bill Clinton—in his trademark triangulation of progressive rhetoric with the big-business agenda—who presided over the passage of banking deregulation that led to the mess. Obama knows that full well because he laid out that sordid record in a major speech on economics during the primary campaign, in March 2008 at Manhattan’s Cooper Union:

“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices.” He specifically cited the New Deal protections of the Glass-Steagall Act and other legislation that Clinton’s radical deregulation legislation had swept away. Inexplicably as a matter of logic, or all too predictably given the political power of Wall Street, Obama as president turned to the same pro-deregulation Clintonistas to run his economic “reform,” led by Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

As for “solving” the banking problem, Obama simply followed the lead of his Republican predecessor. The throw-money-at-Wall-Street solution for which Obama takes credit is the one crafted by Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and it was fully endorsed by then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner, whom Obama named to replace Paulson. The buying off of the financial hustlers was blessed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has been renominated to that position by Obama.

The solution that Obama boasts of has left us with trillions more in debt, one out of four children poor enough to qualify for food stamps and, as Obama conceded in his Tuesday speech, “more than seven million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began.”

I do agree with one line in Obama’s e-mail to those of us who hoped for the best from his presidency: “the opponents of reform will not rest.” But I didn’t expect him to be one of them.

I see that I have effectively put an an end to your back-an-forth about Saddam Hussein and the War to end all wars.

Mr. Go Right Young Man, if “LMAO” is what occurred to you, then I can attest from your posts which seemed like fetchings from the ether of MSM’s nuggets of so-called news that all that is left of you is the hole.
JDmysticDJ, may I refer to you asd, Doo Doo Pants. You seem to be incontinent in so may areas of the body.

Sincerely,

Mr. (That’s Mister to you.) D.D Head
DJ—-
But thanks for clearing that up. Paranoia is rampant. My name is, by coincidence, is Frank Frankly(n). My father shortened it to pass.

Mr. Go Right Young Man,

I think you are a Little Dick Cheney. Your posts aren’t really arguments. But,they do give witness to the thrall that right-wing control of the news media has thrown of the common parlance.

My responsse is not to believe anything I hear on tv or read in the paper. But there are tell tale signs, giveaways, but one has to be acutely aware.

A few days after the solstice I have divined the true meaning of Jesus the Christ.
After reading “The Q Book , and witnessing the events of the past few years whose direction has sped up in a whirlwind fashion to where we are now, I submit that Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated a new way of looking and interpreting events. So new that his apostles and followers devised a new paradigm that said, “That’s it. I’ve had enough. I don’t want to hear anymore.
To illustrate this point:
George W. invades Iraq and Afghanistan and schemes to who knows what end?. The H1N1 Virus scares and lessens the scare. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech echoing Hitler in Sudetenland, and now the world is our target. The health care-BigPHRMA sell out. Favoritism to the Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase banks for their investments in China.
The next bubble if the Cap and Trade falls is Water Rights. Mark my word.
In olden days it was Tulips. More recently, it was High Tech. Hard on its heels came housing. They’re gettin closer and have actually breeched the barricades of the necessities of life, shelter, food and water, lest anyone forget. It is not the iPhone. Next is Water and Food.
Look at Gov. Arnold in California, the nephew of a Nazi. He wants to float 40 plus billion dollar loan for water for the Sacramento Delta. Who do you think will put up the cash to buy then bonds? Of course it will be Wall Street. They are the only ones with cash now.

In my daily travels I don’t meet any native born Americans. The store clerks, the house aids. (Now they are called Room Stlyists) and if I were to ever go to a bar and get unruly, I’d meet their Bar Ammassador.

Do I have to tell you more?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Thisn was Followed by:
By JDmysticDJ, December 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

Go Right Young Man

Frank,

Please cease with the convoluted obfuscation. ———————————————————————-
Which happens to be my first name.

What the fuck is going on here? And who the fuck are you you DJfuckfaceID?

Ending this futile argument is where I was at. I’ll let you have the last word, but I don’t have the necessary will power necessary to resist responding to your last post.

You say,

“These sanctions will harm everyday Iranians. Some, as current sanctions do, in a significant way. Is it the United States harming millions of Iranian people or the government of Iran? Are these sanctions warranted for security reasons? Why was Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama fearful of an Iranian nuclear weapon?”

I prefer to trust the IAEA, and not these “fearful” politicians. Have recent events taught you nothing?

I’m not going to allow you to put me in the position of defending Iran. I find their current crack down on dissent as being inhuman, and incredibly stupid.

Additional sanctions on Iran would harm Iran’s economy, but they cannot be compared to sanctions on Humanitarian Aid to the sick, starving, and dying people of a destroyed country. You have said we owe the people of Afghanistan a lot, and you will “Hang my head in shame” if the nations of the world don’t rebuild Afghanistan, but you have refused to give even a nod to the massive numbers of people who died and suffered in Iraq.

Supposing your worst “fear” is justified, and Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon. Does your “fear” include the Doomsday Scenario that Iran would then attack Israel (Not a signatory to IAEA agreements) with a Nuclear Weapon? Doing so would be suicidal, and I for one, don’t consider that “fear” as being the least bit rational.

I know that you consider, considering the motivations of our enemies as being treasonous, and that making decisions based on a universal morality lacks the necessary pragmatism, but I will point out that our nation long ascribed to the theory of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) as being a rational method of deterrence to Nuclear War. If Iran is indeed attempting to build a Nuclear Weapon, couldn’t that be considered an act of defense, and wouldn’t it actually be deterrence to Western Powers attacking Iran, (According to the madness of M.A.D.?)

Again, you will assert your “fear” that Iran would collude with terrorists to covertly use their Nuclear Weapons to attack the west, but I believe that would also be suicidal, and would only be the remotest possibility, if the policies you ascribe to are continued to their apocalyptic end.

Yes it is a dangerous world, but it’s not a dangerous world because of the beliefs of people like me, it’s a dangerous world because of the beliefs of people like you.

Goodbye

The next time you attempt to communicate with me you’ll be hearing… chirp… chirp… chirp (The sound of crickets) Go away! There’s nobody home.

WASHINGTON — As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran’s nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions.

-

These sanctions will harm everyday Iranians. Some, as current sanctions do, in a significant way. Is it the United States harming millions of Iranian people or the government of Iran? Are these sanctions warranted for security reasons? Why was Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama fearful of an Iranian nuclear weapon?

“Here’s a little advice, don’t be so glib about associating killing and “Breaking things.” It causes people like me to disrespect you. I realize that this is just an example of your pragmatism. - When you come to that fork in the road, take the one to the left.”

-

If lending advice is where we’re at I’ll offer my own.

If you were the president of the United States you would not rely on FOX, MSNBC and the New York Times in making your decisions. You’d rely on what the King of Saudi Arabia, the PM in Britain and the President of Nicaragua had to say.

You would not concern yourself with the opinions of the talking heads on television as much as you would the men and woman you make it their life’s work in understanding our enemies.

You would not give great weight to what others believe Zawahiri and Nasrallah hold as their goals. You would listen directly to these men on what they themselves state as their goals.

And you would know that the stated intentions of the Sept. 11 planners was to break large Western monuments and kill as many innocent humans as possible.

It would be your solemn oath to prevent less than 200 men and woman from killing another 3000 humans and causing another $100 billion catastrophe. - And none of your good intentions and talk would alter the goals of Zawahiri and Nasrallah.

If you were the U.S. President you would have no choice but to decree people dead while living with your decisions.

-

If you still believe Osama bin Laden’s problems with the West have anything, whatsoever, to do with policy you have not listened to him. You have simply given weight to what others, who think as you do, have opined. That, in and of itself, is inherently dangerous.

Your biggest misunderstanding is in thinking Bin Laden’s war is against the United States. Global thinking, as bin Laden does, is essential if you are to have any effect.

War, by its very nature, entails killing human beings and breaking things.

Open societies, by their nature, tend not to war against others. Closed societies, by their nature, tend to attack others and lash out with force. Force, you see, is the only way in which a closed society can gain more resources and subjugate more human beings. We see many examples of open and closed societies today.

Dr. Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, Sayyid Nasrallah and many others teach the belief in a singular global nation under a Muslim context -and all that that implies. They teach a belief in global submission to the Will of Allah. Submit or die. It is this belief that attacked the globe so forcefully on Sept. 2001 and numerous times before.

You believe there’s a man named Osama bin Laden who’s angry with the United States due to a list of justifiable wrongs against his people. The truth is people like bin Laden use these pretexts as a means to a goal. Knowing what those goals are is our goal if we wish to act in any fashion.

-

It’s simply impossible for us to debate a subject if we know it only in the abstract.

I urge you to study the teachings of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Nasrallah for yourself. Only then can you devise a way of making peace.

On and on, and so it goes… I am tired of trying to rid you of your fascist mentality. In a last effort; you should take the suffering of civilians seriously, especially the suffering of children (Please excuse my irrational, bleeding heart mentality.)

Carry on with your advocacy of death and destruction, and avoidance of any attempt to bring a peaceful solution to the problem.

Hopefully this most recent escalation of war will bring peace, but I think not. Time will tell.

If you look again I have demonized no one. I gave a no holds barred verifiable record of Saddam Hussein’s deeds in his day. While others will disagree with my conclusions you’ll not find a single fact in serious dispute. Obviously Saddam’s history doesn’t look healthy. Obviously he worked synergistically within the Jihadist movement.

When I mention the horrible deeds of others, their nature and dangers, you never fail to point intensely back at the U.S.. At yourself. It’s not me who is demonizing you.

-

You do instinctively go out of your way to empathize and romanticize the causes of our enemies while minimizing their tactics and goals. Go back and read your posts. Study the teachings of bin Laden, Zawahiri and Nasrallah for yourself. You’ll find that you all hold a good many of the same criticisms of the West and the United States in particular. You empathize with their perceived grievances.

I didn’t think your question concerning civilians as an enemy was serious.

You’ve asked me many questions, but you failed to answer the one question I asked you. Do you consider civilians our enemies? I don’t think my question is unworthy of a response, after all, in the old west, they used to have a saying about, Native American children, “Nits make lice.”

I can understand your demonizing Saddam Hussein, but I’m wondering about the cause for your attempt to demonize me. Could it be an attempt to silence the tiny, near mute voice of your conscience?

You ask,

“You instinctively go out of your way to empathize and romanticize the causes of our enemies while minimizing their tactics and goals. Why?”

That’s a good attempt at demagoguery, but it has nothing to do with reality. My suggestion that we analyze the rationale of our enemies is not instinctual; it’s based on rational thought. I have never romanticized terrorist acts, quite the contrary, but let me make my position clear. Terrorist acts are inhuman and pathological. I have asked what motivates terrorists to become so pathological, but it’s an extreme example of demagoguery to suggest that that is an attempt to “Romanticize” or “Minimize” their “Tactics and goals.” Let me point out that the tactics of modern warfare, as they were developed in the 20th Century, are terrorist tactics, and there is nothing romantic about them. Aside from being inhuman and pathological, terrorist acts are extremely stupid and counter productive, if minimizing death and destruction is at all a consideration.

You passionately argue that a secular Hussein would never have supported the causes of Islamic extremists while agreeing that Saddam did support the families of Islamic extremists. Why?”

Obviously you think this is a good question, since you ask it twice. Again you define my rational thought as being instinctual or emotional. I’ll point out that I’m not the only person to come to the conclusion I have. The “causes” of radical Islamists were a threat to his power and authority. Your best argument is that Saddam would have colluded with them, by providing them with weapons of mass destruction that he did not have. I have argued that the deaths of 100’s of thousands, and the providing of another rationale to our enemies was not justified, or wise. Obviously we disagree. Actually you’ve made this argument many times, not just twice. Why don’t you move on, and give it a rest. You’ll never convince me that escalating the death and destruction was wise, or moral, when it was based on an unsubstantiated fear.

You ask,

“You deny the validity of U.S. President Clinton’s statement that all roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad, however, you believe in and justify Saddam Hussein’s public offer to support the families of those using the tool of international terrorism. Why?”

Regarding Clinton; I do deny the validity of Clinton’s claim, based on the fact that it was invalid. These peripatetic “roads” seem to go everywhere. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran; I’ve heard it said by foreign policy “experts” that those roads will lead to Yemen in the future. What about the 60 nations you’ve mentioned previously, will those “roads” lead to them in the future.

Regarding the rest of your question, I don’t regard it as a question, I believe it is a despicable act of demagoguery, based on nothing more than your desire to demonize me, and it has absolutely no basis in fact. If I should ridicule you again, don’t get all winy on me, and claim that you have never done anything to deserve that unfair ridicule, or claim that it is an indication that I’m not a peaceful person. This debate is concerned with life and death issues, but the only casualty in our exchanges is your absurdities.

“You see both irony and dichotomy in your positions, yes? You see how your anti-Western screeds are aligned with al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the now deceased Saddam Hussein, yes? You see and talk of the villainous United States and Israel while romanticizing and validating the positions of self proclaimed enemies of the United States and Israel. Why?”

Again despicable, and not worthy of a response, but I will reiterate my belief that wrong is wrong, that the matter of who perpetrates that wrong has nothing to do with it’s moral validity, and that any other analysis is nothing other than a demonstration of a fascist mentality.

You conclude by asking,

“You passionately argue that the Bush administration lied about known Iraqi government links to Islamic extremists while it was the Clinton administration that made it’s case that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda in 1993. Why and how do you justify that position?”

Clinton was the puppet of faulty intelligence, and again, for the umpteenth time, he was wrong. The rest of my argument is based on my previous citing of historical evidence.

I do have passionate feelings about the Bush administration; it has to do with unnecessary killing, squandering of resorces, and its responsibility for catastrophic and potentially apocalyptic wars. You don’t want to hear my true passions regarding Bush and his coterie of wrongheaded fascist mentalities.

The common knowledge is that those payments from Saddam went to the families of martyrs recruited by Hamas and Hezbollah. Self proclaimed enemies of the Western world. But then I didn’t truly have to point that out, did I?

You instinctively go out of your way to empathize and romanticize the causes of our enemies while minimizing their tactics and goals. Why?

You passionately argue that a secular Hussein would never have supported the causes of Islamic extremists while agreeing that Saddam did support the families of Islamic extremists. Why?

You deny the validity of U.S. President Clinton’s statement that all roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad, however, you believe in and justify Saddam Hussein’s public offer to support the families of those using the tool of international terrorism. Why?

You see both irony and dichotomy in your positions, yes? You see how your anti-Western screeds are aligned with al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the now deceased Saddam Hussein, yes? You see and talk of the villainous United States and Israel while romanticizing and validating the positions of self proclaimed enemies of the United States and Israel. Why?

You passionately argue that the Bush administration lied about known Iraqi government links to Islamic extremists while it was the Clinton administration that made it’s case that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda in 1993. Why and how do you justify that position?

It’s common knowledge that Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of suicide bombers. My understanding was that those payments were given to the families of suicide bombers who died for the cause of Palestinians. That in no way justifies the payments. You don’t need to convince me that Saddam Hussein was guilty of this false largesse.

Are you falsely attacking my character again? I don’t consider innocent civilians our enemies, do you?

It’s common knowledge that Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of suicide bombers. My understanding was that those payments were given to the families of suicide bombers who died for the cause of Palestinians. That in no way justifies the payments. You don’t need to convince me that Saddam Hussein was guilty of this false largesse.

Are you falsely attacking my character again? I don’t consider innocent civilians our enemies, do you?

So your answer is no. Even if convinced that most or all of what I’ve presented is correct it would not change your disdain for the United States and empathy for U.S. enemies?

You do not believe, for example, that Saddam Hussein himself offered to pay the families of Hamas and Hezbollah homicide bombers? You believe Hussein did not have that connection to anti-Western Islamic Jihadists?

Thank you for taking the time to once more present your argument. Clearly, it’s very important to you that myself, and others, accept your version of what occurred.

First, and forgive me, but much more skilled investigator/researchers than yourself, have failed to come to the conclusions that you have asserted as being facts.

The fact that intelligence agencies failed miserably, in providing accurate intelligence, is well known. Many of their sources were exposed as being charlatans, and intelligence agencies have offered no evidence to substantiate their earlier claims. Rather than being able to substantiate those claims, many of those claims were proven to be false.

It is not my intention to disparage you, but your post reminds me of books I have read, that had no footnotes, but claimed to have privileged information about the most top secret, highest level meetings that took place in rogue, foreign countries.

I know that it’s frustrating for you, but if you provide your sources, I will leave the investigation of those sources to others. It’s unreasonable of you to ask that I take the valuable time to investigate your suspect sources. I have research of my own to do, and time is limited.

Honestly, there are very real and inescapable facts that are evident now. We’re into it now. Since the “Mother of all Wars,” we find ourselves fighting on four fronts in Arab lands, with more fronts to come. Millions have been displaced and killed, and huge amounts of our resources have been wasted. In my simple mind, the truth, or lack of truth, in your assertions has little significance for me now. You have said we’re safer now, but I say that clearly the opposite is true.

Can we expect that western style democracies, that we have established, will ever have any stability, and will not face constant and continuing opposition. Even in the best of circumstances, western style democracies are subject to corruption. Karzai says another ten years of support are necessary, but many of “his people” have other goals. They want us out, and from their perspective can you blame them?

I realize that there are many differences between Israel’s experiences with the Arab peoples and ours, but there are many similarities too. What’s the final solution for Israel? Can we expect that our experience will be any different from Israel’s?

I don’t want to be pessimistic, but the future looks very bleak to me. The options available to our leaders consist of everything from prolonged “limited war” to all out war. There are, of course, other options, but those options will not be taken, or even be seriously considered, by those who currently influence policy and make the decisions.

I apologize if I have perfunctorily dismissed your post, I know that you have spent a fair amount of time preparing it. My assessment is that your argument has been stated with literate perfection.

Everything below, I know, runs counter to what you have come to believe in. It’s my sincere belief that if you actually take the time to hear me out and check my facts, a different, wider, context can be added to our discussions.

I will offer both facts (F) and opinions and will do my best to differentiate between the two. I sincerely urge you to check my facts against the most reliable sources.

-

(F) As American casualties mounted in Iraq, politicians in the U.S. began fighting over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President George W. Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida — and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons — and, in my opinion, illogical for even more.

(F) Almost every responsible U.S. government body, including the known 16 intelligence agencies, had long warned about Saddam’s links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read, in part: “In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” Bill Clinton, in the same year, warned: “All roads to international terrorism travel through Baghdad”. None of these things involved the Bush cabal.

(F) Then in October 2002, George Tenet — the Clinton-appointed CIA director — warned the Senate in similar terms: “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade.”

Seventy-seven Senators apparently agreed — including a majority of Democrats — and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: (F) “. . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.”
The Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate, that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly still, (F) one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled directly to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam the day of the attack. And after the U.S.‘s successful battle against the Taliban, Abu Musab Zarqawi, the murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, [reportedly] escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That’s why (F) both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas - terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s — were in Baghdad years prior to the U.S. invasion and why (F) the families of West Bank homicide [Hezbollah] bombers were given $35,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists’ efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions — and can’t even do that without the (F) clandestine help of regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provided money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Opinions - Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region — and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty — deflected popular anger over their own failures on to the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to “fight terror” earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing “friends.”

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, several Western nations (F) took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, successfully pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans (which he did), and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war — we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq — but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship.

Americans can, often legitimately, blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone (F) from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons the U.S. and others went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side attacked American soldiers — and why the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan is now fighting with the United States.

(F) After 2003, and after pressure from the United States, the world witnessed the Egyptian government open its election process a bit more. The Saudi government has allowed wider and more open regional committee elections. Kuwait, Qatar, and the UEA have opened their election processes to woman for the first time. More woman hold positions in the Afghan government than any time in her history. Some of these things are truly amazing events but almost completely ignored.

(F) In August 2001 there were nine nations openly supportive of Islamist radicals. Today there are only two. Most of the remaining seven are openly, publicly, speaking out against Jihadists and actively fighting these self-styled enemies of the West.

-

Dr. Zawahiri can only dream of one day controlling the resources Saddam enjoyed at his disposal. The military, the billions in petro-dollars in the “seat of civilization” -holding the second largest oil reserve on the globe.

If I could prove to you that the facts I lay out above are all or mostly true would you look on these events differently? I don’t mean to suggest that you would agree with all I have opined. Just differently?

Any casual observer would note how I offered exactly what you offered. I offered a fairly detailed explanation as to why I correctly use the term Islamic fascism. I offered exactly what you offered. An opinion. We simply disagree in our opinions.

You label your opinion on the subject as factual and mine, well, not so much.

I’m certainly not a psychologist, the opinions I expressed were based on a laymen’s observations, but like so many laymen, I don’t consider the opinions I offered as being mundane.

My use of the word deficiency was in no way an apology. The deficiency I was mentioning had to do with a lack of loudness. I think I overcame that deficiency in a “neatly written” way, if I do say so myself.

My comment about “Bar Ambassadors” was not “wishful thinking” about your getting your “skull crushed” or head busted, or a wish that any other violence befall you. It was based on a long ago experience I had with “Bar Ambassadors.” I wasn’t being unruly, I was merely undesirable. Much to their disappointment, I was able to escape the “Skull Crushing,” by using good common sense. I have experienced the head busting, but that’s another story, and I have already been guilty of over disclosure.

Fans of Truman Capote are disappointed that he wasn’t a more frequent “typist.”

GRYM:
I have to admire you: You can ignore facts and logic and history, restate your unsupported position, and then claim it’s fact!

I gave you a fairly detailed and VERIFIABLE history and definition of what Fascism is. Not what I think it is, nor what I choose to define it as, but what it actually is and how it arose. I showed, that, by that definition, the radical Islamic movements, dangerous and abhorrent as they are, simply cannot be called “fascist” with anymore validity than an apple can be called a sirloin steak.

Yet you ignored it, dismissed it, and re-asserted WITHOUT EVIDENCE your claim that “Islamic Fascism” is a valid description. HOW???? By using Lewis Carroll’s Humpty-Dumpty philosophy?:” `When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ “

On top of that you then described ME as being inappropriate in how I conduct a debate.

It’s really terrifying that America has come down to one party suffering totally from cognitive dissonance and being PROUD of it! A true debate cannot occur when one side will do or say ANYTHING, false, true, or totally immoral solely to regain power.

Very neatly written answer. Hovwever, your theories into psychoanalysis are mundane and to be expected.

“My comments to you have been a frivolous diversion, from what I consider more important issues. I’m sorry if you felt threatened by them. You began your communication with me by being snide, so I don’t take you seriously.”

Importan issues? You mean your “stuff” about Fascisms and such? You are better at typing than you are at thinking.

“You refer to me as a loudmouth, but it’s obvious that your mouth is much louder than mine.

I will attempt to correct my deficiency.”

You should never apologize. Love is never having to say you’re sorry, and saying you are sorry is if such common parlance.

“I wonder what the intent of your posts is. I conclude that they are an overly aggressive attempt at self aggrandizement, and a neurotic desire to achieve dominance.”

My intent was to bring up your wishful thinking that I might get my “skull crushed.” As Truman Capote said about that writer from Lowell MA of French Canadian descent, “He’s a typist.”

You do deserve to get back to your spat with Go Right Young Man, So go ahead.
TTFN

You asked me what the term Fascist means to me. There are a series of characteristics that give a clinical definition of what Fascism is. One’s degree of Fascism would depend on the number of Fascist characteristics one professed.

To put it simply, a Fascist is an Authoritarian sociopath. I use the term to describe anyone who displays a Fascist mentality. I believe Fascists believe in the absolute authority of an individual or institution and they have no tolerance for anyone who questions that authority.

Why do people talk about Hitler so much? It’s because he was the ultimate Fascist, up to now, and the best example of what Fascism can reap.

I think that one characteristic that leads to the horrors of Fascism is extreme nationalism, a kind of sociopathic nationalism, where the people of a nation put that nation’s priorities above humanitarian concerns.

I believe another characteristic of Fascism is a near total moral decadence of a nation’s people, and its institutions.

I once heard Noam Chomsky say that “if you don’t believe in a universal morality, you’re a Fascist, that’s all” That makes sense to me and it points out the sociopathic nature of Fascism. If something is wrong, its wrong, and it doesn’t matter who does it.

I hate the idea that foreign policy, and national security issues supersede morality. I think that that kind of thinking is self defeating, and that it leads to atrocity, and ultimately, to self destruction.

Is our nation a Fascist nation? That depends on your perspective. I believe that there are elements of our society that are fascistic.

To me, I know I don’t want to move any farther to the right. The political right has historically been the focal point for Fascism, but it has often been preceded by failed or unpopular political institutions. Fascism seems to grow when people have no faith in their political institutions, and people have turned to Fascism in huge numbers, in an attempt to bring an end to chaos. Not always though. Germany got Hitler, and we got Roosevelt. Only a fool would say there was no difference between them.

The exact quotation from George Santayana is “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (This is actually a paraphrase from an earlier statement by Edmond Burke)

My comments to you have been a frivolous diversion, from what I consider more important issues. I’m sorry if you felt threatened by them. You began your communication with me by being snide, so I don’t take you seriously.

You refer to me as a loudmouth, but it’s obvious that your mouth is much louder than mine.

I will attempt to correct my deficiency.

I wonder what the intent of your posts is. I conclude that they are an overly aggressive attempt at self aggrandizement, and a neurotic desire to achieve dominance, or perhaps just a crass critique of the, seemingly futile, debate between Go Right Young Man and myself.

I will take your criticism into consideration, and I admit that your criticism has some validity. However, time is limited, and I won’t be responding in depth, to what I consider to be excessively irrational arguments. I will continue to attempt to discount them with ridicule.

Thank you for your argument attempting to reaffirm my contention that the book in question is a screed. You could have done so, without expressing your disdain for me, but given the record of your posts, I understand that I am asking too much of you.

I’m starting to sound like Go Right Young Man. In a younger day I would have just said F…k off!

JD,
You warned me about messing with Bar Ambassadors as they would “crush my skull.” Sounds like a veiled threat or wishfull thinking. At any rate, I don’t go to bars anymore, too many self-important loudmouths like you.
My nephew (6’ 4” 245 lbs.) and my brother-law (6’ 1” 220 lbs.) were both bouncers. One on the Cape where he had to deal with clients like you if initimidation didn’t’ work, and the other worked in New York City. He is by far the scariest.

You say, and I quote,
“I get tired of responding rationally to what is perceived as being obviously irrational by me.”

Try responding rationally before you tire of trying.

As far as Jonah Whatsisname is conerned, isn’t “Liberal Fascism” an oxymoron? Scalia’s father was a Fascist. He was founder of the American fascist Party in 1934 while serving as a Professor of Classical Literature at Huntington College. Part of the British Royalty tried to start a Fascist Party in the 30s. Benito was not alone.

I think Jonah’s affiliation with think tanks serves well to define him. They get “tanked up” and sit in front of a PC and let go. They can use the wildest tidbits of their imaginations to write treatises like the one mentioned. Of course, they do use information culled from their readings of history, but they use it selectively and usually incompletely.

I disappoint though, because I do not go to bars and get unruly. I think even Bar Ambassadors have a job to do. Don’t you?

“When someone uses grammatical errors to argue a point not concerning grammar, they don’t usually have much else to argue with.”

I would wholeheartedly agree with your comment as a general rule,”… they don’t “usually” have much else to argue with.”

I sometimes reply to what I perceive as being absurdity, with absurdity of my own creation. I get tired of responding rationally to what is perceived as being obviously irrational by me. Continually responding to absurdities with rational argument puts one in a defensive position, and has been an exercise in futility in this situation. I will respond rationally, when the comment warrants a rational response.

Have you bought-in to Go Right Young Man’s criticisms of me? Perhaps my attacking the Tea Baggers bigotry can be interpreted as being bigotry, according to the logic of some.

Having a political point of view and using historical evidence to illustrate the dangers of certain political perspectives is also bigotry, to some.

It’s easy to get lost in the technical details of debating style, and spurious dialectics, but doing so only detracts from the real issue that sparked the debate. If one party in debate responds to rational dialectic with obfuscation and accusations, and the other party responds to the obfuscation and accusations, then the desired distraction has been achieved.

My absurdities whether they are effective or not; are intended to be a shortcut to ending the obfuscation.

Go Right Young Man responded to my observations and assertions by attacking my character, which he has done and continues to do, while he claims he has never done that.

I’m not a student of debate, nor is my character perfect, but I have, and will continue to respond to what I believe are spurious and dangerous arguments.

Please stop. You’ve got me sobbing with remorse now. I had no idea my ridicule was so lethal.

You’re right, I really should lighten up, it’s not as if what were discussing here has any importance.

You’re also right about me not wanting to read the books you assign to me. Perhaps reading these books would give me a better grasp of history. The books I read are full of the facts and things, they only clutter the mind.

Your last book intrigues me. I always thought a liberal was a liberal and a Fascist was a Fascist, but I guess there could be: communist /fascists, socialist/fascists, democrat/fascists, centrist/ fascists, republican/fascists, and fascist/fascists. I know we have democrat/republicans so I guess all kinds of pairings are possible. Now I’m starting to get a handle on this Tea Bagger logic.

The only thing that stumps me though, is that I made a cogent argument, using facts from history to prove that German Fascists were not socialists, and that it would be very difficult for one to be the other, seeing as how they are very far apart on the political spectrum, and that their beliefs are opposed.

Really I’m taking all this Tea Bagger stuff too seriously, the only thing these Tea Bagger rallies “Incurred” was a lot of coverage on Fox News. I did question some of the specifics at these rallies, but hey, who am I to judge.

“You are not a quest to save my soul?” Did you have to ask? Of course I’m not a quest to save your soul, I’m a person. I’m glad you appreciate and realize that now.

This has been a long, long, oh so long debate. It’s taken me such a long time to make sure you’re my enemy. I think it was all these demands, accusations, and disparagements that made me see the light. Hum…? There may have been some other things involved too, but I can’t exactly bring them to mind right now. Something about peace being stupid and war being smart? Or deaths being irrelevant; I’m not sure if that is right either? I think you said some deaths were important, but others weren’t, or maybe it was something about humanitarian concerns being foolhardy and dangerous… Hum? Oh well, I can’t remember… Anyway, En Garde! Get ready for more deriding, belittling, and demonizing.

Do you think its easy talking about patience, empathy, and compassion? Don’t get me started, there are so many closed minds out there that talking about these things will make you unpopular real fast. They’ll call you names, question your motives, accuse you of being on the side of evil people, and tell you that you don’t believe in these things really, and on and on. Whew! You think it’s easy? Get a clue! Living these things without actually having to talk about them would be much easier. Believe you me! But that wouldn’t be very existential, would it?

Unfortunately, deriding, belittling, and demonizing (I don’t like demonizing, isn’t there another word we could use? How about exposing? That’s still a little harsh. I’ll give it some thought) are the last weapons in the arsenal of the warrior for peace.

Warrior for peace, that’s you isn’t it? I’m getting all turned around here; your criticism has caused me some fluster.

“I am the war-monger and I have never once attacked your character” Aren’t you doing that now? I could’ve sworn… maybe I’m just being paranoid.

Belittled yourself, why would you do that? That’s my job, but I’ll take all the help I can get.

“…by calling you names or told you how you’re simply too stupid to hold an opinion.”

I mentioned Israel in a passing manner. Obviously this is a passionate subject for you.

I will make three points and let them stand alone. Three items I sense you’ve not given their due gravity.

1. In Israel one can stand in the town square and yell profanities and insults at the nations leaders. No harm will come to them. In Gaza and the West Bank one runs the risk of being shot on the spot or decapitation in the dark. Same holds true for most of Israel’s immediate neighbors.

A Palestinian, or a Jordanian for that matter, can pass into Israel daily to earn a living. The society will do them no harm. The reverse is not true. You make an Israeli sound like a cold blooded murderer.

2. Israel is surrounded by enemies. Never mind for the time being how this came to be. It’s nonetheless true since her inception. We can consider what that does to people.

3. You are ignoring the Israeli. The use of shoot-and-scoot missiles — Katyushas, Qassams and worse to come — is altering the strategic calculus, as they now number in the many thousands. The fear of Hezbollah’s near limitless mobile launchers enabled Hezbollah to put whole Israeli cities in bomb shelters and almost shut down the country’s economy.

In urban landscapes, Hezbollah hide among apartment buildings, use human shields and welcome all fatalities — friendly or hostile, combatant or civilian. Death of any kind, they think, makes the liberal West recoil, but allows them to pose as oppressed victims. In the mean time they are getting huge numbers of civilians killed in a calculated fashion.

If you already understand the gravity of this you’ve certainly never hinted at it. In your written views to date you seem to believe Israeli’s are calculated murderers. Hezbollah the clear cut freedom fighters. Only a Palestinian can be a victim.

-

Don’t misunderstand me. I understand the plight of both sides and easily sympathize with everyone. I have no answers on how to make peace or even quell the violence between the Jewish and Arab/Persian societies. I happen to believe the Iranian people to be some of the most hospitable on earth (I’ve lived there). My favorite coffee shop of 12 years is operated by a dear friend from Lebanon. My Arabic interpreter has had me to his home dozens of times. As he mine. My college roommate of three years was born, lives, raises his family in Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. We’ve talked almost monthly for decades.

I offer this last bit in an attempt preempt you from turning three observations into some odd Neo-Con, war-monger Islamophobe making enemies of faceless Arabs.

Fascism denotes different things to different people. I honestly can’t think of a single example of anything I’ve said, or anything the Tea Party protests have incurred, that could, in any way, be construed as fascistic.

What does the term mean to you?

You could simply come out and say that you have no interest in, or time for, reading a well researched book that runs counter to what you desire to believe in. But you should pause before you write or speak of who may or may not have shown fascistic tendencies until you’re willing to listen to another point of view on the subject.

You are not a quest to save my soul? I appreciate that. I didn’t realize. But, if I may, how are you going to achieve your goal by way of making well sure that I am your enemy and, you take so many opportunities to deride, belittle and demonize me?

I ask for the third time. Is it simply easier to talk of spreading patience, empathy and compassion than it is to be an example of it?

I am the war-monger and I have never once attacked your character, belittled myself by calling you names or told you how you’re simply too stupid to hold an opinion.

If I were going to the Library, I’d return these overdue books I have. Sorry, I don’t have time to critique any screeds right now.

How about you? Do you have any time to read anything about the history of the Labor movement in the U.S.? How about something about the Spanish Civil War? I’ll make it easy on you. Try Earnest Hemmingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” It’s just a novel, and not too informative, but I think you will be able to get the gist.

JDmysticDJ, - “Maybe I shouldn’t have included Tea Baggers. They are too stupid to have political beliefs.”

-

You go far in illustrating my point for me. There are, in reality, no “tea Baggers”. There are only a few hundred thousand fellow Americans who attended “Tea parties” in their legitimate and lawful protests.

What you display in that single sentence is pure, unadulterated, nastiness and small minded bigotry. But I am the one “creating enemies” where they do not exist?

Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

You are blinding yourself with your hatred of those who fail to see the world as you do. You are the seed in wars between men. It’s frightening that you fail to learn it.

Before you go any further I urge you to take 30 minutes from your day and visit your library. Pick up the book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”.

Yes. Goldburg is conservative. But that’s not the point. Yes, in my opinion, the author takes some leaps in his conclusions. But that too is not the point. No. I don’t subscribe to everything in the book. - Not the point either.

The book is well researched and you’ll find a treasure-trove of historical facts you can use as a jumping point. Take the time to verify the author’s research. Take the time to duplicate or debunk his findings. It’s how real research is conducted (I offer my help in the research).

-

I have, for weeks now, urged you to do your own research on the issues we have discussed.

You are dangerously wrong on Al Qaeda types for one simple reason. You have never taken the time to listen to these people whom demand your complete and total submission or your death. You seem to think this is merely my opinion. But, due to never having taken the time, you have no idea that this is the opinion of Dr. Zawahiri and bin Laden.

A few days after the solstice I have divined the true meaning of Jesus the Christ.
After reading “The Q Book , and witnessing the events of the past few years whose direction has sped up in a whirlwind fashion to where we are now, I submit that Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated a new way of looking and interpreting events. So new that his apostles and followers devised a new paradigm that said, “That’s it. I’ve had enough. I don’t want to hear anymore.
To illustrate this point:
George W. invades Iraq and Afghanistan and schemes to who knows what end?. The H1N1 Virus scares and lessens the scare. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech echoing Hitler in Sudetenland, and now the world is our target. The health care-BigPHRMA sell out. Favoritism to the Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase banks for their investments in China.
The next bubble if the Cap and Trade falls is Water Rights. Mark my word.
In olden days it was Tulips. More recently, it was High Tech. Hard on its heels came housing. They’re gettin closer and have actually breeched the barricades of the necessities of life, shelter, food and water, lest anyone forget. It is not the iPhone. Next is Water and Food.
Look at Gov. Arnold in California, the nephew of a Nazi. He wants to float 40 plus billion dollar loan for water for the Sacramento Delta. Who do you think will put up the cash to buy then bonds? Of course it will be Wall Street. They are the only ones with cash now.

In my daily travels I don’t meet any native born Americans. The store clerks, the house aids. (Now they are called Room Stlyists) and if I were to ever go to a bar and get unruly, I’d meet their Bar Ammassador.

Do I have to tell you more?

Mujnik Abibe Mutalabab from Nigeria should have listened to his mother’s advice, “Keep it in your shorts.”

For the life of me I can’t quite follow why you write things before you fully research them.

-

“Union opposition to Fascism goes back to the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939., Franco the Fascist received military support from Hitler and Mussolini. Have you ever heard of Guernica? The Spanish Civil War was a war between right and left.
The smear that the right tried to apply to Labor Unions was that they were communists. Do you have any grasp of history at all?”

My God. You truly are all about Left and the evil Right. You honestly do believe in this stuff you write. But I’m the one between us who creates enemies?

You have no idea that what you believe as Left and Right, in another country and at another point in history, have little to do with your contemporary image of progressive and conservative. As long as your image of someone on the “Left” fits in a neat and tidy small box you’ll stop at nothing to defend some of the worst mass murderers in history.

You make every excuse in the world in order to validate and legitimize your and ITW’s gross behavior in these posts because, you believe, your cause justifies it. You then dare to move forward in condemning others for that exact same behavior? You are guilty of the behavior which you claim wars are born of. How do you not see it yourself?

You strike me as honest and intelligent. But you’re also reactionary by nature. Not fully armed with true historic facts. - Just being frank with you.

You have said many things I disagree with, some of which I considered horribly wrong headed, but this one takes the grand prize.

“That’s not history, my friend. That’s wishful thinking on your part. Hitler’s most ardent and vocal supporters in America of the day were most decidedly from the “Labor” movement. Look it up yourself and you’ll see.”

You have destroyed any last bit of credibility you have had regarding history, with this statement.

Here’s a simple observation. Arlo Guthrie’s daddy, Woodrow Wilson Guthrie was a radical union activist, and singer and writer of “Folksongs.” Woody had a sign on his guitar that said “This machine kills Fascists.”

Union opposition to Fascism goes back to the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939., Franco the Fascist received military support from Hitler and Mussolini. Have you ever heard of Guernica? The Spanish Civil War was a war between right and left.

The smear that the right tried to apply to Labor Unions was that they were communists. Do you have any grasp of history at all?

There were no Fascists in Labor Unions, they would have been, “Goons and ginks and company finks.” “Ku Klux Clan Members” “Lumpen Proletariat” “Trailer Trash” (no offense to mobile home dwellers, it’s just a figure of speech,) “Tea Baggers.”

“America First,” is the best example of “defacto” supporters of Hitler. “America First” was formed by that renowned anti-Semite Henry Ford, and included heads of corporations and bankers.

JDmysticDJ, - “It’s interesting to note that Hitler’s defacto supporters in this country were from the right.”

-

That’s not history, my friend. That’s wishful thinking on your part. Hitler’s most ardent and vocal supporters in America of the day were most decidedly from the “Labor” movement. Look it up yourself and you’ll see.

I am not the one making up enemies here. Both you and ITW are steeped on conjuring nonexistent enemies. This belief in the mythical evil “Neo-Con is just the oddest phenomena.

Inherit The Wind, - “You totally ignore the factual basis I laid down for the invalidity of the term “Islamic Fascism”

-

That’s right. I did. And, once again, you show complete disdain and animus for another point of view.

You gave me no facts in support of your view. You offered what I myself offered. Opinions. I simply disregarded your opinion on using the term Islamic Fascism. I committed no crime and belittled you none for holding an opposing view.

GRYM:
You totally ignore the factual basis I laid down for the invalidity of the term “Islamic Fascism” and then just asserted, without either a factual basis or rebutting my facts, yet again that it’s a perfectly valid term.

And you want me to show you respect after THAT?

What you are trying to do is lay down some sort of right-wing justification for, yet again, perpetual war on Islamic nations we don’t like.

Yet again, the Right Wing is trying to lay down a simplified “enemy”, which doesn’t actually exist! Once it was “monolithic Communism”, which didn’t exist as the Russians and the Chinese hated each other and fought several bloody border wars. Now that enemy is “Islamofascism” or, as you put it “Islamic Fascism”. But that’s not a valid simplification of all the issues and problems with the Islamic world, and, specifically the problems the USA has with that world.

You don’t understand these workings and issues because it doesn’t fit your nice, comfortable Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck world view. Their view and yours is simply not supported by facts.

Yet you maintain them. Sorry, but that’s not how you earn my respect (whether you want it or not).

Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
Adolf Hitler

I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
Adolf Hitler

Strength lies not in defence but in attack.
Adolf Hitler

Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.
Adolf Hitler

The art of leadership… consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
Adolf Hitler

The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.
Adolf Hitler

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
Adolf Hitler

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
Adolf Hitler

Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.
Adolf Hitler

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
Adolf Hitler

As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.
Adolf Hitler

Your recent mammoth post requires that I resort to a Brett Favre maneuver, and come out of retirement.

I’ve noticed that the left’s attempt to respond to the demagoguery of the right, puts the left in a defensive position, and causes the left to resort to demagoguery of its own; thereby obfuscation of the core issues is achieved.

Your mammoth post contains much demagoguery and many falsehoods, and does not respond to the core issues of our debate regarding the efficacy and costs of war. I will respond to what I consider the essences of your mammoth post.

Inherit The Wind’s comment makes an excellent point, and points out your advocacy for “Holy War” because of the religious beliefs of Islam. Never mind that the views you ascribe to the Islamic world apply only to a very, very small minority of Islamists. Even what are considered to be extreme Islamists, do not ascribe to the views you attribute to them.

Your bringing Israel into the debate leads me to make the following observation about Israel, and its demagoguery. At the very center of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is Israel’s belief that Israel has a given right to occupy and rule what was formerly Palestine, based on the events of ancient history. This belief is obvious in spite of Israel’s attempt to use demagoguery to obfuscate this issue.

According to the record, Israel’s first occupation of Palestinian land was accompanied by God’s command that Israel destroy: every man woman and child, beast in the field, and fowl in the air. I’ve heard “Main stream,” esteemed Christian teachers condemn ancient Israel for not having followed that command in its absolute entirety.

The right’s discomfort with the actual events of recent history, have caused the right to resort to more obfuscation by revising history. All reputable historians recognize that fascism is an extreme right wing ideology. (I will agree though, that the fundamentalist beliefs of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are also right wing beliefs.)

The Tea Bagger’s belief that communism, socialism, liberalism, fascism, and Islam are all one and the same, only points out their infantile ignorance.

In what appears to be a futile attempt to shed the light of truth on this issue, (Because of the right’s propensity to ignore facts that shed the light of truth on their ideology.) I will point out that Mussolini’s definitive description of fascism was “Close Cooperation between Business and Government.” It’s interesting to note that Hitler’s defacto supporters in this country were from the right.

Putting Hitler’s insanity aside, he was a very effective politician, and he made and broke alliances based on his lust for power. Hitler was very open in his opposition to left wing ideology, and to what he referred to as “Jewish Capitalism,” but according to William Shire, his rise to power included an alliance with German industrialists, and he believed in giving business a “free hand.”

Hitler attacked all elements of the left, including labor unionists, “French Liberalists” and the socialism of the Weimar Government. Hitler ruthlessly purged his own party of socialist elements, during the “Night of the Long Knives.”

Hitler did embrace one element of left wing policy, that being government spending to end the ravages of depression. Hitler’s spending to rebuild the German military, and his spending on architectural projects designed to enhance the belief in “German Exceptionalism” effectively brought an end to the depression in Germany.

Finally, Hitler’s rationales for wars and the virtues of empire are very common, but hidden by demagoguery, because of their unpopularity with the good “nature” of most human beings, even the good “nature” of the poor misguided “Good Germans” who were horrifically mislead by the demagoguery and propaganda of Fascists. They suffered greatly because of their unenlightened ignorance.

1. While I will take note of your comments I can make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam.

2. In regards to Mussolini: You’re arguing against a point I did not proffer.

3. You write how I need to realize that Sharia is in and of itself NOT a government-enforced way of living. ONLY the radical fundamentalists believe that Sharia must:
a) be enforced by government
b) is utterly extreme and unforgiving in its implementation.

If you read my post again you’ll see how that was my point exactly.

-

Why, after reading your posts, am I almost always left with the feeling that division is your intention? Is it your disdain for me personally or is this your avocation?

GRYM:
Your two posts on Islamic Fascism are some of your best, but you defeat your own purpose with errors.
You are better off using “Islamist” rather than “Islamic Fascism”. It will get you in less trouble (if you care), but, more importantly, it is more accurate.

Only one of the 3 WWII era major fascist states was fundamentally anti-semitic, and that, of course, was National Socialism or the Nazis. The paradigm of a fascist state was Italy, which emerged in 1922, 11 years before Hitler and Nasism’s rise to power in 1933.

THIS IS CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTANDING FASCICM! Italy’s emerged IMMEDIATELY after WWI, and Mussolini’s links to Socialism (in the Marxist sense) were far more substantial than the Nazis in Germany and Austria. It is also important to understand that Hitler WORSHIPED Mussolini and used him and his regime as his model. Fascists in Italy weren’t imitating the Nazis in Germany—it was the other way around.

Further, Mussolini was both baffled and amused by Hitler’s virulent anti-semitism. He thought Hitler was nuts to worry about it and focus on it. It wasn’t until the 1940’s, when Mussolini was in SERIOUS danger and needed Hitler’s support that he embraced anti-semitism—and then it was totally cynical and self-serving. Il Duce didn’t give a shit about the Jews one way or another—he just wanted to stay in power.

While all the modern true fascist movement came out of Christian nations, their religious sense was somewhat different, with the fascist iconography being more important than Christian. This is a FUNDAMENTAL and unresolvable difference between Fascism and Islamism, where Islam (as interpreted by the radicals) reigns supreme.

Also, you need to realize that Sharia is in and of itself NOT a government-enforced way of living. ONLY the radical fundamentalists believe that Sharia must:
a) be enforced by government
b) is utterly extreme and unforgiving in its implementation.

Many Islamic (not Islamist) scholars take GREAT issue with this POV, saying that Sharia is a PERSONAL choice, not an enforced one, like keeping Kosher or going to Catholic confession regularly.

I have said before and I KEEP saying it, that Christianity when it was 1400 years old didn’t look too different than modern Islamic fundamentalism—which is also just about 1400 years old. They feel they have been under attack, particularly for the last 200-300 years. Christians felt THEY were under attack from 1100 to 1400 from Islam’s expansion. And they fought back viciously.

One must understand that totalitarian RELIGIOUS regimes and totalitarian FASCIST regimes mainly have totalitarianism in common.

JDmysticDJ, - “What’s with Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon; is it because they were secular and considered jihadists as their enemies?”

Far from it. Syria, in fact, has hosted Hezbollah for decades. Iraq had hosted the most wanted man in the world, Abu Nidal-Achille Lauro fame, throughout much of the 80’s and all of the 90’s.

Both Syria and Iraq worked out their own non-aggression pacts with al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq’s IIS (Mukhabarat) trained Abu Zubaydah and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the arts of explosives and chemical weapons engineering.

The underlying reason Syria and Iraq failed to participate with the rest of the Arab world in Afghanistan was due to their respective alliances with the Soviet Union.

Syria/Lebanon - Syria controlled the whole of Lebanon during the Afghan-Soviet battle.

In this war we find ourselves in (it is a war to our enemies. Not a law enforcement matter) I purposely use the term “Islamic fascism.” Muslim-American groups are quick to express furor at the expression. Middle Eastern autocracies complain that it’s provocative and insensitive.

Critics of the term, however, should remember what al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist Muslim groups have said and done. Like the fascists of the 1930s, the leaders of these groups are authoritarians who brook no dissent in their efforts to impose a comprehensive system of submission upon the unwilling.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to kill any American they could find, and then tried to fulfill that vow on Sept. 11. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah bragged that “the Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them” — and then started a war. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, promises to “wipe out” Israel, and is seeking the nuclear means to do so.

Sharia law and dreams of pan-Islamic global rule fuel their ambitions. Once again, they seek to fool Western liberals through voicing a litany of perpetual hurts. Like the Nazis who whined about the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I, and alleged maltreatment of Germans in the Sudetenland, for years Islamists harped about American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the U.N. embargo of Iraq and the occupation of Gaza and Lebanon.

But when each complaint is settled, another louder one sprung up; these grievances, it turns out, are pretexts for a larger sense of victimhood, jealousy and lost pride. And appeasement — treating the first World Trade Center bombing as a mere criminal justice matter or virtually ignoring the attack on the USS Cole — only spurred on further aggression.

Islamic fascism is also anti-democratic and characteristically reactionary. It conjures up a past of Islamic influence that existed before the supposed corruption of modernism. Like Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, who sought to recapture lost mythical Aryan, Roman or samurai purity, so Islamic fascists talk in romantic terms of the ancient caliphate.

Anti-Semitism is a tenet of fascism, then and now. But so is a generic hatred for unbelievers, homosexuals and blacks. The latter are slurred in the Arab media, while homosexuals were rounded up under the Taliban and the Iranian mullacracy.

“Mein Kampf” sells well under its translated title “Jihadi.” President Ahmadinejad recently suggested in a sympathetic letter to the German chancellor that the Holocaust was little more than an “alibi” used by the victors of World War II to keep the defeated down.

Even now, it is hard to distinguish the slurs against Jews (“pigs and apes”) used in the Middle Eastern media from the venom of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda. Goose-stepping and stiff-armed salutes at Iranian and Hezbollah parades are conscious imitations of past fascist armies.

Some object that the term “Islamic fascism” is too vague to encompass the differing agendas of diverse groups such as the Wahhabis, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. But just as racist German Nazis found common ground with Asian supremacists in Japan, so too the shared hatred of the West trumps the internecine rivalries of present-day Islamists.

The common denominators are extremist views of the Koran (thus the term Islamic), and the goal of seeing authoritarianism imposed at the state level by force (thus the notion of fascism). The pairing of the two words conveys a precise message: the old fascism is back, but now driven by a radical fundamentalist creed of Islam.

Others object that fascism conjures up images of past huge armies, and thus exaggerates only a moderate threat from today’s ragtag jihadists. But Iran is seeking a bomb far more powerful than anything Hitler had at his disposal. About 2,400 Nazi V-1 buzz bombs in World War II reached their London targets. Nearly 4,000 Katyushas hit tiny Israel in about a month. And the petroleum of the Middle East is the lever by which the Islamic fascists hope to overturn an oil-hungry world.

In contrast, the fuzzy “war on terror” is the real inexact usage. The United States has never fought against an enemy’s tools — such as German submarines or the Soviet KGB — but only against those who employ them. Other groups today use terror — like narco-dealers and Basque separatists — but this war at this time is not against them.

The real problem is not that “Islamic fascism” is inaccurate or mean-spirited, but that this identification earns such vehement disdain in Europe and the United States. That hysteria may tell us as much about the state of a demoralized West as the term itself does about our increasingly emboldened enemies.

Your constant focus on what the United States does, while almost completely ignoring the words and deeds of others, mystifies and, admittedly, frustrates me at times.

It’s common today for anti-war “activists” to listen to their contemporaries and unceremoniously re-write recent history. It’s fascinating, too, how what was once the liberal geopolitical view has today become the conservative (Neo-Con) world view.

Why did a majority of Democratic Senators — such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer — vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?

The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes — but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, democratic senators at the time also cited Iraq’s sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam’s attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable. The notion that Iraq was “Bush’s War” has always been partisan hyperbole come “common knowledge”.

Nevada’s Sen. Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam’s refusal to honor past agreements “constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

But it was not just fear of Saddam alone that prompted Democrats to authorize the use of force to remove him. There was the more general liberal notion of using American arms to stop violent dictators. While the Democratic Party has a strong pacifist wing, its mainstream has always advocated a global promotion of American liberal values — sometimes through the use of preemptory force.

Many Democrats in Congress, for example, had earlier authorized George Bush Sr. to fight the first Gulf War to stop Saddam’s mad drive to absorb Kuwait. In 1999, House Democrats sought, but failed, to pass congressional authorization for President Clinton’s ongoing air war against Slobodan Milosevic.

Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide.

Throughout American history, it was usually the Democratic Party that proved the more interventionist. Democratic Presidents — whether Woodrow Wilson in 1917, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939-40, Harry Truman in 1950, John Kennedy in 1963 or Bill Clinton in 1999 — long battled Republican isolationists who insisted that it was never in America’s interest to fight costly wars abroad unless directly attacked by a foreign nation.

Again, why then did the majority of Democratic Senators vote for the present war in October 2002?

One, they rightly concurred with the president’s post-9/11 conversion to the idea that removing a Middle Eastern mass-murdering regime and leaving a consensual government in its place could be a key component in winning the war against Islamic terrorism. And two, their party had always believed that the United States can sometimes make things better abroad by stopping tyrants and dictators.

By the same token, why do many of these same initial supporters of the Iraq war years later now hedge on or renounce their past records?

Partisan advantage explains much of the past and even present posturing against an opposition president. But mostly, the rising Democratic furor comes as a reflection of public anger at the costs of the war — and the sense that we are not winning.

Unlike the invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf war (1991), the Balkans war (1999) or even the Afghanistan conflict (2001-2009), Iraq has taken over 3,000 American lives. Had the reconstruction of Iraq gone as relatively smoothly as the three-week removal of Saddam from Kuwait, most Democratic senators and congressmen would now be heralding their past muscular support for democratic change in Iraq.

So instead of self-serving attacks on the past administration, Democratic senators and congressmen should simply confess that while most of their earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.

But they should remember one final consideration. The next time a Democratic administration makes a case for using America’s overwhelming military force to preempt a Milosevic or a mass murderer in Darfur — and history suggests that one will — the Democrats’ own present disingenuous anti-war rhetoric may come back to haunt them, ensuring that such future humanitarian calls will probably fall on ears as deaf as they are partisan.

This will be my final comment to you on this issue. I’m going to leave this debate with an attempt to salvage any little bit of dignity I have left. Your obstinacy in recognizing, or at least considering, what I believe are the truths of this debate has “worn me down.” Perhaps future events will change your views, or mine. Time will tell.

Saudi Arabia funded the Taliban until 2001, (as we did, because of a no longer necessary Unocal gas pipeline.) Saudi Arabia separates men and women in public settings, and has a special police force to enforce these separations. Saudi Arabia dismembers and decapitates, as the Taliban do. Saudi Arabia is ridden with social and religious strife, which is heavily suppressed. I mention this only to point out the Hypocrisy of our policies.

We have had an oil and defense agreement with Saudi Arabia that dates back to 1938. We get 15% of our oil supplies from Saudi Arabia. We need to be prepared to purchase our oil supplies from the global market place or, much preferably, to develop other sources of energy, but pursuing these wars will waste our resources, making development of these other sources of energy much more difficult.

Nearly everything I read from our enemies indicates that their goal is a withdrawal of foreign troops from their lands. I believe that giving them the victory they seek would also be a victory for us. You will find my solution to the problem as being extreme, and foolhardy. I believe your solution to the problem is extreme, foolhardy, will facilitate a continuation of the atrocities, and that it has the potential to lead to endless war, and a prolonged, or sudden apocalypse.

A “drive buy” is similar to a visit to a drive thru window. I meant to refer to a “Drive By”

Now that I’ve exposed my lack of perfection on this Spelling and Grammar issue, I feel compelled to point out a more obvious imperfection.

“I don’t respect you. How can I respect you when you have failed to notice my “Achilles heel;” that being my punctuation and capitalization weakness? You have failed to notice and exploit this weakness. Sun Tzu would frown upon you.”

Thank Goodness for Christmas. You need a rest. I can see that this debate has had a serious detrimental affect on your spelling and grammar, and it is precipitating rapidly. You need an intervention on this spelling and grammar problem. Perhaps your friends and family will confront you over the holidays, and direct you to emergency spelling and grammar therapy.

Thanks for the very brief analysis of my beliefs; it leaves me little to reply to. I need a rest too.

I realize that what I have said is an inconvenient and very uncomfortable truth, and contrary to the popular dogma of recent events.

Thanks for not killing the messenger (I was worried there for a while.)

Three U.S. Presidentz, there entir Nationel Securitee stafs, 500 plus Congressman, the leeders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Britain and ruffly fortee more countrys from aroun the weorld claim Sudam Husien was a threet to the weorld and yur repli is simply….oh yea….butt it twas the united stats that used nukess decadez ago.

lick i says all focas onthe united StateS it dont matter what a thret Saddum was to the weorld it"s the US thats dangerus.

“Since the dawn of man humans have been waring. It’s vicious and bloody and hell on earth. Individuals, groups, community’s and nations all participate at one time or another. There is not a single example of a nation on earth that did not both defend and project its might.”

Since the dawn of man humans had been riding on jackasses, but here of late, we’ve gotten over that for the most part. (Unfortunately there are some nations where a jackass is still considered a good ride.)

Those who provide the rationale for Hell on Earth are making that Hell on Earth an option.

There are some mighty rich nations who are in to the defending and not the projecting.

(Watch your apostrophes and spelling)

You say,

When men and woman fail to defend themselves, often in a “forward” fashion, not only do they die but their families and friends and community die along with them. There is nothing in the world that you can do to change those facts.

I see what you mean about “’forward’ fashion.” I’m up for it! You’ve got me going now, check this out: “Go ahead make my day”… “You talkin’ to me?” “You talkin’ to me?” You talkin’ to me?” or how about this one “’What do you mean I’m funny’”… ‘What do you mean; you mean the way I talk? What?... “Funny how? What’s funny about it?’”…Pretty good huh? What d’yuh think?

Sorry that’s not funny. But this kill or be killed scenario has put me in the mood for some humor.

The truth is, if you’re unjustifiably afraid of being killed, you might unnecessarily kill some body. I’m definitely not into this first blood, pre-emptive strike mentality.

You say,

“Now you have a choice. Live or die.”

I’ll choose life; you appear to be choosing death.

You say,

“Change human nature and you’ll find the piece you seek. Until than, for God’s sake, stop making it worse by the things you say to others. You alone can have a tremendous effect. But know what you are saying before you say it.”

Once again it’s behavior, not nature. I’ve already made my case regarding my belief about this issue. I see what you mean about “Full Circle” we seem to be going around and around in circles in this debate. The best advice I can give you at the present time is…watch you’re spelling.

“Saddam Hussein did come to power and had over 200 of his most potent opponents tortured and killed in the first week. Saddam Hussein did start two regional wars which killed nearly two million people. Saddam Hussein did massacre an entire culture of humans who had been on earth for thousands of years. Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 3-400,000 graves in the deserts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein did spend tens of billions of dollars on himself while 26 million people suffered. Saddam Hussein did twice attempt to hold the world’s largest oil reserves and Saddam Hussein did attempt to kill an American President.”

You state this nonsense so unequivocally, even the tens of billions. When you were first indoctrinated with this propaganda, did you bother to check to see if it was actually true, or did you just want to believe it. Much of what you assert has been challenged or discounted. Was it 3 or 4 hundred thousand graves.

“A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.”

He did go to war though, that’s for certain. He did a lot of despicable things that’s also certain. His death count falls short of our death count in Indochina. What’s the death count since our invasion of Iraq began? Did our invasion precipitate, or reduce death? I’ll suppose you can speculate about the death count that would have occurred, if we had not invaded. You’ll need to come up with some big numbers. Please don’t include that which has been proven false in those speculative numbers. What about the numbers from the first avoidable invasion? You have argued against the authoritative experts as to the cause of those numbers. Are you now going to argue that those numbers don’t exist? Does it make you sad when you see the numbers? Sad is such an insignificant little word.

You say,

“Saddam Hussein showed absolutely no signs of abating his quest for nuclear weapons or his outspoken desire to lead the Arab world in the fashion of Nasser before him. -None of which addresses his two megalomaniac Sons.”

There are many nations that have sought and acquired nuclear weapons. So far only one nation has used them. If you are from the right, as I’m sure you are, I’m sure you consider the Soviet Union as being one of the most evil, dangerous groups of nations in the history of the world. They didn’t use their nuclear weapons. You’re going to say that Saddam would have covertly used them. I’m going to say that he was not that crazy, and that his sons were not that crazy. We’ll go around and around. You’ll justify the deaths, and I’ll say that the deaths were not justified. You’ll be saying that we would have seen a “Mushroom cloud,” and I’ll say that we need to make rational intelligent decisions, and not fall victim to fear, in order to avoid that “Mushroom cloud.”

This single individual was THE most urgent threat on earth in his day. That day is now gone.

We have other days now, and more days to come, are we really safer now that he’s dead? The costs of making him dead have been very high; in so many ways. Ways which we may not even be aware of.

You say,

Know these things and know them well. Think what you wish about the United States. But deny those facts above and you have dismissed all that is real.

I believe in the “American Dream,” the problem is it hasn’t been real, it never has been real. I’m going to do everything I can to make it real.

You say,

“There are people in the world that want you dead. No talking. No tea. No debating the worlds problems. Just Dead.”

Are you the pragmatic and sane one? If you’re trying to scare me, you are. I’m not afraid of them. I’m afraid of you.

You say,

“The world very much needs people like you. But in your single minded, laser-like, focus on all things American you get people killed with the things you spread. Know what you’re saying before you say them.”

Thanks for the compliment, sort of. I think I’m going to have bad dreams tonight. You’re not just a fool, you’re a very dangerous fool, and it is most definitely because of what you believe, and say.

Why does my spelling and grammar always stop on your sections? Work on it.

If I may? It helps me to print a PDF and read comfortably and thoroughly. PDF files are also more often found from research institutes (it’s a geek thing).

I believe it’s important not to settle into too many conclusions while reading from any one, so-called, bin Laden release. While the underlying goals remain the same their justifications evolve over time. At times even contradictory. It’s also important to fully understand that even when only one man’s name appears as the signatory it’s often to the work of a few or many. - It helps to keep that context.

Search in: ESRXXX-01…17 was issued—open letter to the king on the occasion of .... Bin Ladin:

Aloud was a mistake. So was using “than” rather than “then” I’m certain there are more, however, Piece was my own play on words. You’ll see that I later used Peace intentionally and correctly.

-

There is always much to discuss when going over so much history involving so many players. It does become taxing at times.

I have much going on today but wanted to ask if you are searching for bin Laden’s 1995 Aug. “Open Letter” to King Fahd or his “Open Letter” to moderate Arab nations? I had to read through your two last posts rather quickly and wasn’t sure in the end which you asked for. I’ll have to locate my notes on the second.

Read the “Unauthorized Biography of George W. Bush.” It was given the go ahead by its publisher, I’ve forgotten his name right now, John ____ who used to appear on CBS’s Sunday Morning. John has since died.
Yeah, I’ve heard the put down of his relationship with LaRouche (I might add that LaRouche and I have one thing in common, Lynn, MA), but his research and his exposition of the facts that underly the conventional wisdom promulgated by the Government MSM and their minions is shattering.

If you have no dogs in the hunt other than your own skin and that of your family’s, than at least I suggest try reading some of his explanations.
He was dead right about Obama.

“Arabs from the world over flocked to defend an Arab Brother. Even men like Osama bin Laden accepted the military aid and humanitarian comfort provided by the U.S., while, simultaneously, condemning the Arab world for NOT doing it themselves.”

I guess you are saying the Arab world did not support the jihad, or did support the jihad. Sorry, your posts confuse me sometimes.

Flocking is a somewhat illusive concept. What constitutes a flock?

You say,

“The Arab world called for Jihad to fight the Soviet aggressors. They employed a religious context that was extremely effective. U.S. intelligence and military had never seen anything like it. It was that effective. This, on such a grand scale, was not, to say THE LEAST, fully understood in it’s day.”

Were the Soviets, technically, the aggressors? Weren’t they actually invited in by the then government, based loosely on a mutual defense agreement? Of course, I’m being felicitous; the Soviets were no more justified in their aggressions, than we have been in our aggressions.

There seems to be a serious breakdown in intelligence here. We never did have much luck in evaluating our murderous; drug smuggling “Freedom fighters.” We should have asked the “aggressors” about the “nature” of our “Freedom fighters.” Their soldiers were very familiar with the old “Save your last bullet” concept.

You say,

“None of this speaks of NATO and every NATO nation’s involvement in Afghanistan. Ignore that alone and all context is lost. This was never a U.S. mission against the Soviet Union. It was a global effort led by the U.S.. And it was in tandem with who? Almost the entire Arab world (less Iraq and Syria/Lebanon).”

O.K., now I get it; you’re saying the Arab world did help with the jihad.

What’s with Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon; is it because they were secular and considered jihadists as their enemies?

Syria/Lebanon? I’ve never seen that before. Was it created by Syria, Lebanon, or Israel? All these wars create a lot of confusion don’t they?

You say,

“For brevity I’ll end the narrative by saying the U.S., the Arab world, and all of NATO “won” that battle and everyone went home. But the army which was built to wage that war was not only completely ignored and left to war against each other, those very proud fighting men were never accepted back into the Arab fold in their respective home nations. The globe aloud a Jihad to fester.”

Thanks for the brevity, this gets tedious sometimes. Why weren’t they accepted back into the fold? Was the fold afraid of them? I get your point though; these very brave fighting men were unemployed, once we left, so they had no choice but to war against each other. When did this festering start? Was it only after we left that the festering started?

(Again, watch that “aloud” stuff; it’s tricky.)

You say,

“We now live in world where roughly 200 men can attack the Pentagon, bring down two MASSIVE buildings and kill many thousands in under two hours. Now we study people like Dr. Zawahiri. Men and woman who operate in roughly 60 nations spanning the globe.

Wow! This is worse than I thought. I thought they were all in Afghanistan. Why aren’t we occupying the 60 nations all over the world?

Seriously though, why don’t we work to eliminate this serious threat by ceasing our failed policies that only aggravate the threat?

Webster Tarpley, the author of “911 synthetic Terror” has several interesting theories. He’s also a very close associate of Lynden LaRouche (A one time proposed candidate in LaRouche’s political party.) Forgive me if I don’t bother to read the book.

Maybe I’m being too brash; he has one credible (?) enthusiastic supporter whose name keeps popping up. He seems to have credentials of a sort. Does he offer credible evidence to back up his assertions? Do his books have footnotes?

I’m willing to blame Bush for many things, but I’d like to have some credible support for my claims, before I make them. I need to make sure I’m not foolishly offering “bull shit.”

I’m getting very sloppy. You never asserted that the Arab world did not aid the jihad. I’ll study your comments in more detail from now on. Oh incidentally allowed is spelled “allowed” and not “aloud.” Sorry, just doing my job.

Thank you for being so gracious regarding my embarrassing error (?) Thank you for not suggesting that this error (?) proves that much of what I believe is false. That reminds me to not believe your previous error diminishes much of what you believe.

I would be in remiss, if I failed in my secretarial duties, by not pointing out that peace is spelled “peace” and not “piece.” I understand it’s just a simple little error; I make them all the time. Let me give you some advice that has helped me. The next time you write the word, give it a little more attention.

Your proposal that the U.S.’s support of the Jihad in Afghanistan was actually just a part of the whole world’s, but not the Arabs, coming to the aid of the jihad, and that the cold war had nothing to do with it, is interesting. I’ll have to give it some serious thought. Hum…? O.K. I’m done.

The one thing that is certain in my mind is that this “Holy War” had tragic consequences, and continues to have tragic consequences for that area of the world.

Regarding the question of Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq, I’ll make a personal observation. The War in Iraq had the effect of diverting much of the world’s attention away from Osama bin Laden, and on to Saddam Hussein.

Regarding the Al Queda Reader; it has put me in a very dark place, and it has raised some questions, for me, regarding my beliefs about Osama bin Laden’ s self justification for his terrorist acts. Seriously, I’m hoping you will be able to shed some light on my darkness, by helping me answer the question of the “Al Queda Readers legitimacy”. I have done some research, but admittedly not enough to answer these questions.

#1. Regarding Osama bin Laden’s “Open Letter” to Saudi Arabia; I can find no evidence of it, other than in the “Al Queda Reader.”
#2. If the “Open Letter” is in fact legitimate,” Were Osama bin Laden’s citations of quotations from the Quran an attempt to justify his terrorist acts with the moderate Arab World, or were the citations of those quotations a statement of his actual beliefs and goals? (I know that his real intentions would be very difficult to prove or disprove, but, I suppose that one should take these citations at face value.)
#3. Were the most recent releases of the videos showing Osama bin Laden authentic?
#4. Is Osama bin Laden alive or dead?
#5. Are there numbers of “false flag” incidents that have occurred during this madness? (By their very nature “false flag” incidents are highly secretive and very difficult to identify, but we do know from the revelations of participants from past false flag incidents, that these actions are seen as being highly efficient, by some, in order to influence opinion and policy.)

As you can see I’m in a very dark, conspiratorial, and perhaps paranoid place in my mind, but let us imagine for just one moment, that my paranoid delusions have some substance. The very difficult, seemingly unanswerable question becomes:

Who are these shrouded puppet masters, and do they find this hidden power to advance their agendas intoxicating?

Damn, as you can see I’m in a very dark place. I need to get back to reality.

So I’ll get back to reality by asking the most troubling question of all. Who is Garth and why is he such a snide little geek?

Just try this on. I offer this in contrast to the U.S. being THE villain in this epoch.

The United States, for reasons of it’s own, and all very legitimate, helped the Arab World fight a proxy war it wanted to fight in Afghanistan. Including the majority of Afghan’s.

Arabs from the world over flocked to defend an Arab Brother. Even men like Osama bin Laden accepted the military aid and humanitarian comfort provided by the U.S., while, simultaneously, condemning the Arab world for NOT doing it themselves.

The Arab world called for Jihad to fight the Soviet aggressors. They employed a religious context that was extremely effective. U.S. intelligence and military had never seen anything like it. It was that effective. This, on such a grand scale, was not, to say THE LEAST, fully understood in it’s day.

None of this speaks of NATO and every NATO nation’s involvement in Afghanistan. Ignore that alone and all context is lost. This was never a U.S. mission against the Soviet Union. It was a global effort led by the U.S.. And it was in tandem with who? Almost the entire Arab world (less Iraq and Syria/Lebanon).

-

For brevity I’ll end the narrative by saying the U.S., the Arab world, and all of NATO “won” that battle and everyone went home. But the army which was built to wage that war was not only completely ignored and left to war against each other, those very proud fighting men were never accepted back into the Arab fold in their respective home nations. The globe aloud a Jihad to fester.

We now live in world where roughly 200 men can attack the Pentagon, bring down two MASSIVE buildings and kill many thousands in under two hours. Now we study people like Dr. Zawahiri. Men and woman who operate in roughly 60 nations spanning the globe.

-

Full circle.

We, the globe, owe the Afghan people a debt almost beyond our ability to pay. They willingly fought the front lines in a battle in which most of the world was involved in. - Dr. Zawahiri and others want a nation. ANY broken “Arab” nation will do for now.

JDMUSHTIC and GoFuckYourselfYoungMan should read “911 Synthetic Terror” “It should be required reading for all honest truth seekers”. Terrorism is NOT what you say it is.

Robert Fisk talking about the assasination of Lebanon’s Hariri said that no one knows for sure who did it. These groups skulk in the shadows and they are brought out to perform these deeds by money, government money

All your bull shit about al quaeda, the Taliban, Iran and the rest of the usual suspects can be cleared away by looking at the US Government and especially the infestations of the Bush Family influences.

Thank you for that. If you look again at what I’ve been saying it all comes down to this. Look for yourself at what our enemies are saying and teaching. Look for yourself at who was the man Saddam Hussein. Look closely at Dr. Zawahiri and less on bin Laden.

Forget for the time being what you believe about the United States. Look past the Western media. Our enemies are constantly talking.

The world desperately needs people like you. And I will gladly stand right next to you in our quest for peace.

I am one of the most optimistic people I happen to know. I also believe the majority of humans are kind in nature. And I am considered to be a pragmatist. There are certain facts that must be dealt with head on.

Since the dawn of man humans have been waring. It’s vicious and bloody and hell on earth. Individuals, groups, community’s and nations all participate at one time or another. There is not a single example of a nation on earth that did not both defend and project its might.

When men and woman fail to defend themselves, often in a “forward” fashion, not only do they die but their families and friends and community die along with them. There is nothing in the world that you can do to change those facts.

Now you have a choice. Live or die.

-

Change human nature and you’ll find the piece you seek. Until than, for God’s sake, stop making it worse by the things you say to others. You alone can have a tremendous effect. But know what you are saying before you say it.

Saddam Hussein did come to power and had over 200 of his most potent opponents tortured and killed in the first week. Saddam Hussein did start two regional wars which killed nearly two million people. Saddam Hussein did massacre an entire culture of humans who had been on earth for thousands of years. Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 3-400,000 graves in the deserts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein did spend tens of billions of dollars on himself while 26 million people suffered. Saddam Hussein did twice attempt to hold the world’s largest oil reserves and Saddam Hussein did attempt to kill an American President.

Saddam Hussein showed absolutely no signs of abating his quest for nuclear weapons or his outspoken desire to lead the Arab world in the fashion of Nasser before him. -None of which addresses his two megalomaniac Sons.

This single individual was THE most urgent threat on earth in his day. That day is now gone.

Know these things and know them well. Think what you wish about the United States. But deny those facts above and you have dismissed all that is real.

-

There are people in the world that want you dead. No talking. No tea. No debating the worlds problems. Just Dead.

The world very much needs people like you. But in your single minded, laser-like, focus on all things American you get people killed with the things you spread. Know what you’re saying before you say them.

I withdraw my accusation regarding your “fabrication and distortion.” Having read the following excerpt from the “Al Qaeda Reader,” which supports your views. I can well understand why you hold your views.

Although Osama bin Laden’s missives to the west deal with issues of perceived injustices, the following from the “Al Queda Reader” supports your statement. Please accept my sincere apology.

I stand by the rest of my post. Osama Bin Laden is in no way typical of ordinary muslims, and I have not seen any evidence that the Taliban supports these extreme views, though I suspect that some do.

I would point out that we have extremists in this country who also hold extreme religious views.

Please forgive my ignorance on this matter, and my, much too hasty, false accusation. This is very embarrassing. I have been guilty of what I criticized you for.

“Moreover, since this essay was written as an open letter to the Saudis (that is, for Islamic eyes only), it is refreshingly, if not alarmingly, honest and straightforward. As such, many doctrinal issues that the practitioners of moderate Islam deny or shy away from—Offensive Jihad in order to establish Islamic rule around the globe, enforced discrimination against infidels (dhimmitude), the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity—are all expounded without reserve, based on the authoritative sources of Islam: the Koran and sunna of the Muslim Prophet. Indeed, the tone best describing al-Qaeda’s essay is one of outrage and amazement—that the Saudis would even contemplate abolishing such “fundamentals” of the faith as Offensive Jihad and hatred toward non-Muslims all in order to peacefully coexist with the West.”

I took a rest yesterday. I intentionally did not turn on my computer yesterday. I needed a rest from this apparent futility. My intention was to try and show you the “error of your ways.” You have not budged an inch, from what I consider to be cruel and dangerous beliefs. If I call your dialectics sophistry it’s only because that is what I believe they are. I have not accused you of lying, per se, but I have accused you of obfuscation. Rebuttal of my assertion of obfuscation would have been achieved simply by providing proof of your assertion, which you have to this point not been able to do. You provided links that you claimed provided that proof, but I spent time investigating those links, but none of those links verified what you said was a “Very real fact.” This was extremely annoying, and another exercise in futility. I am now, also accusing you of fabrication and distortion.

“If you study the teaching of Dr, Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden you’ll learn firsthand their goals and their proscriptions to achieving those goals. You and I will either submit to the will of Allah or we must, necessarily, be put to death. Negotiation is not the desire of these men.”

Apparently my world view has gone from being “Narrow.” To “Pre-Teen,” while I was away. Since most people believe that pre-teens lack knowledge, I consider this an Adhominem attack, which is another example of your style of reasoned debate.

Somehow, you continue to describe my arguments against war as being anti-peace, when in fact, it is you who openly advocates for war, saying that advocating for war is actually advocating for peace. “War is peace,” is one of the most famous quotations from George Orwell’s highly acclaimed novel “1984.” You consistently attempt to state your argument, by your methods, while accusing my methods as, somehow, being anti-peace. I know it’s been said that words can kill, but that is simply not true in this case, unless you believe, as you apparently do, that peace is death.

The problem here is that I am arguing from, what I consider to be, an informed moral based point of view, while you are arguing from, what I consider to be, a false pragmatic point of view. I believe that Idealism is the highest form of pragmatism, but your lack of faith won’t allow you to understand that view. I hesitate to open myself to “Pre-teen” attack here, but I believe the good has rewards, while the bad has other consequences. You ignore my “Salient points” and continue what I consider to be your sophistry.

You say,

“… You have said, and certainly not displayed, anything that suggest we can change human nature.”

You’re evaluation of human nature is unacceptable to me. It’s human behavior that needs to be changed not human nature, though I do believe that some human beings are dominated by a primitive acquired behavior, I also believe that efforts must be made to point out the horrendous results of that behavior.

History is open to all, and though it has been subject to different interpretations, its evidences are obvious, but still, some wish to re-live the tragic follies recorded there.

You have made what you believe is a reasoned argument for war, that is to say death and destruction. As futile as it may be, I will reply to those arguments. Forgive me if I must attack what I consider to be your spurious arguments. I will be using logic, satire, and sarcasm, which I believe are valid methods to use during debate. Hopefully, you’ll be able to discern which is which, and hopefully you will not consider my methods as being anti-peace.

“Such as it is in the real world. A world in which a phony Internet rumor, like the supposed cause of misery of Iraqi children lay at the feet of the U.S, can incite thousands in mere minutes in this global information age.”

Apparently UNICEF and the Lancet are a part of a “phony internet rumor” “ in your real world”

“*Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400.”
“Reprinted from Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 to 1998: Assessing the Impact of Economic Sanctions, by Richard Garfield.”

“Even illustrious medical journals like The Lancet have carried scholarly reports of deaths of Iraqi children attributed to the sanctions.”

“…the cause of misery of Iraqi children lay at the feet of the U.S,” are your words, what I have said is that the U.S. inordinately contributed to blocking humanitarian aid for Iraq.

As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harper’s,

“The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country…. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers. (Read disease)”

Harper’s magazine may not be acceptable to you, but it hardly qualifies as being “A phony internet rumor.”

I have other “Snippets” that state that the U.S. new well in advance of the first Gulf War, what the effects of the war plan would be, and that those effects were seen as desirable in order to meet their objectives. Would you like me to post them?

You say,

“The West still has the technological edge in warfare. But thanks to globalization, the Internet and billions of petrodollars, terrorists can get their hands on weapons (or the instructions on how to build them) that often prove as lethal as those used by American or NATO troops.”

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, but I totally disagree with your premise that continuing the wars will alleviate that threat. I believe that continuing the wars increases that threat. Furthermore I believe that former U.S. policies made that threat a reality. Policies that I suspect people like you, if not you, people who think like you, were advocates of.

You say,

“Human nature, after all, does not change. And since the beginning of civilization the point of war has always been for one side through the use of force to make the other accept its political will.”

What a joy it is to see Fascist Rationale on this thread. Did you read Mein Kampf? You’ll find similar comments in that book.

You say,

“We should remember that and get back to basics in Afghanistan. Our leaders must remind us that war always offers only two choices — bad and worse.”

You left out another option, which would have neither of these two consequences.

“We certainly could leave Afghanistan. That would, by a better than fair chance, allow the Taliban to return to power and host more radical Islamic terrorists.
Or we can persist in a dirty business of trying to stabilize a consensual government that will fight terrorism. Both are dangerous enterprises: Withdrawal has long-term risks; staying may become hellish in the short-term.”

15 of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and the others were from somewhere else. Does it matter? Do you think that Afghanistan is the only place where terrorists can be trained or recruited?

The Hamburg cell and other conspirators

“According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the terrorist attack itself was planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and approved by Osama bin Laden, with Mohammed personally choosing the hijackers, and bin Laden approving of the decision[citation needed]. Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah became the organizers of the plot. Investigators say that Mohammed Haydar Zammar acted as the “travel agent” to Afghanistan.”
“Three of the hijackers, along with Ramzi Binalshibh, Said Bahaji, and Zakariyah Essabar were members of the Hamburg cell. After Atta, al-Shehhi, and Jarrah left for the United States, Binalshibh provided money to the conspirators. Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, met with two of the hijackers in Kuala Lumpur during the 2000 Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit. Hambali also gave money to alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. The members of the cell fled Germany before the terrorist attacks.”

Do you think that the current Afghan Government or future Afghan Governments could eliminate training and recruiting, or do you think that NATO forces would need to occupy all of Afghanistan, if so, for how long? Do you think that this occupation would eliminate the threat of training and recruiting in other countries?

The attacks were not funded by the Taliban. This rationale for escalating the war in Afghanistan makes no sense. If the Taliban were to take control in Afghanistan would they then attack us? This is unfounded paranoia and demonization, and supposes that they are suicidal. Suppose they are that suicidal, or suppose that they assumed they could attack covertly, what’s stopping them from doing so now, or in the future if they were not returned to power? Would a future Afghan Taliban have the wherewithal to overthrow a much larger and better armed Pakistan, in order to acquire nuclear weapons? This is a doomsday scenario that only further provides false justification for continuing the madness, and increases the real dangers. This is similar to the cold war paranoia that gave false justification for the Viet Nam War. Are you familiar with the “Domino Theory?” Somehow I feel that you will remain unconvinced. I’ve been through this before.

You say,

“If our leaders today could consult great generals like the Roman Scipio Africanus or William Tecumseh Sherman — who won what were once near-hopeless wars — they might receive the following advice:”

I know nothing about Roman Scipio Africanus from the land of “Circus Maximus,” but I do know that Lee’s only hope of winning the Civil War was taking Washington at the beginning of the War. It was most definitely not a “near hopeless war.” Sherman’s activities were a much smaller version of the fire bombing of Japan which Robert McNamara had a hand in, and later admitted he thought were war crimes, at the time.

What are “Politically correct euphemisms? It depends on what your view is that determines which side is using “Politically correct euphemisms.” Could this description be considered more Adhominem attack?

“* Prepare the public to shoulder human and financial costs.
* Be candid about why enduring the horrors of war now is preferable to risking even costlier violence later.
* Talk always of winning, never leaving or quitting a war.
* Have no apologies for crushing the enemy. The quicker the enemy loses, the fewer get killed on both sides.
* Inform the public of the other side’s losses just as you do your own.
* And be magnanimous to the defeated—after the war, not during the fighting.”

What was he being so Magnanimous about? His invasion/conquest? If I’m right you admire him. There are others I admire.

You say,

“Nation building may be fine and even necessary. But war always involves “a military solution.” How can there be economic prosperity or political stability if civilians are afraid of getting killed by enemy terrorists?”

“Military solutions “are only successful when civilians submit to the will of the victors. Afghanis are not famous for submitting to the will of their conquerors. How can there be economic prosperity and political stability if civilians are afraid of, and have been killed by foreign soldiers, and the civilian government is seen as being illegitimate by some? What makes you think the current government will be seen as more legitimate than the Soviet backed government was? Because it’s Democratic; is it really? Many people in that land see only the Loya Jirga Government, with Sharia law as being legitimate.

You say,

“President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words “victory” and “win.” All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.”

I have points of agreement with this statement, but the United States of America also has a long history of war, only three of which achieved, what I consider a positive result, and they bore little similarity to the current wars, unless you consider the holocaust and the Fascist attempt to build empire as being similar to the Afghan War. Please don’t attempt to make that correlation, because it will be more sophistry.

JDMysticJD, - “I hold the narrow global view that inflicting misery and death can be avoided”.

The simplest of questions. How? Through all of this discussion you have yet to outline your goals or how to achieve them.

Will you achieve your goals by way of the kind stance and words you’ve displayed toward me? By the patience you have extended toward me? By constantly, foolishly and, in pre-teen fashion, called me a liar simply because I fail to see the world as you do? By never letting up on the notion that you represent all that is good and people who fail to agree are the evil and bad?

You have yet to post, even once, an attitude of kindness, patient understanding, empathy or peace amongst men with whom you disagree.

I ask again; is it simply easier to talk of these things but not be a true and authentic example for others?

-

If you study the teaching of Dr, Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden you’ll learn firsthand their goals and their proscriptions to achieving those goals. You and I will either submit to the will of Allah or we must, necessarily, be put to death. Negotiation is not the desire of these men.

If, given an opportunity, will you treat them as you have me? I would never do what they proscribe. I will never cut your head off.

My apologies again for some minor mistakes in my editing. The following should have read.

Your entire premise is fraudulent. That’s not to say you don’t believe in what you desire. I believe you do. Nonetheless what you strive for, in your still unexplained and ambiguous rhetoric, will never be achieved. Not while one salient fact remains. You have NOT said, and certainly not displayed, anything that suggests we can change human nature.

Your entire premise is fraudulent. That’s not to say you don’t believe in what you desire. I believe you do. Nonetheless what you strive for, in your still unexplained and ambiguous rhetoric, will never be achieved. Not while one salient fact remains. You have said, and certainly not displayed, anything that suggest we can change human nature.

I have, in this conversation, been the constant advocate of dialog and patience. You have, from your beginning post, been an advocate of division, confrontation and discord. Ironic, yes?

Such as it is in the real world. A world in which a phony Internet rumor, like the supposed cause of misery of Iraqi children lay at the feet of the U.S, can incite thousands in mere minutes in this global information age.

The West still has the technological edge in warfare. But thanks to globalization, the Internet and billions of petrodollars, terrorists can get their hands on weapons (or the instructions on how to build them) that often prove as lethal as those used by American or NATO troops.

That Osama bin Laden did not have anything like the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz did not prevent him from taking down the World Trade Center.

Nonetheless, many of the old rules still apply amid the modern fog of war. Human nature, after all, does not change. And since the beginning of civilization the point of war has always been for one side through the use of force to make the other accept its political will.

-

We should remember that and get back to basics in Afghanistan. Our leaders must remind us that war always offers only two choices — bad and worse.

We certainly could leave Afghanistan. That would, by a better than fair chance, allow the Taliban to return to power and host more radical Islamic terrorists.

Or we can persist in a dirty business of trying to stabilize a consensual government that will fight terrorism. Both are dangerous enterprises: Withdrawal has long-term risks; staying may become hellish in the short-term.

We should also carefully define the enemy. Who exactly are we ultimately fighting in Afghanistan? Afghans? Arabs? Radical Muslims? Terrorists? Most of the public is still unsure after eight years of war.

There are certainly plenty of horrific thugs like those in the Taliban throughout the world whom we often ignore. But what made radical Afghans of vital interest to the United States was their willingness to help radical Arab Muslims kill Americans on a wide scale.

What unites al Qaeda and the Taliban is a shared murderous radical Islamic ideology, one antithetical to our own. Americans should hear that without politically correct euphemisms.

War typically concludes when one side cannot fulfill its political objectives. Sometimes both sides quit, as in the Korean War. But usually, as in Vietnam or the Balkans, violence ceases when one side is tired of losing more than it hopes to gain — and admits defeat.

If our leaders today could consult great generals like the Roman Scipio Africanus or William Tecumseh Sherman — who won what were once near-hopeless wars — they might receive the following advice:

* Prepare the public to shoulder human and financial costs.
* Be candid about why enduring the horrors of war now is preferable to risking even costlier violence later.
* Talk always of winning, never leaving or quitting a war.
* Have no apologies for crushing the enemy. The quicker the enemy loses, the fewer get killed on both sides.
* Inform the public of the other side’s losses just as you do your own.
* And be magnanimous to the defeated—after the war, not during the fighting.

Nation building may be fine and even necessary. But war always involves “a military solution.” How can there be economic prosperity or political stability if civilians are afraid of getting killed by enemy terrorists?

President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words “victory” and “win.” All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.

It’s amazing that you so willingly choose to completely ignore others points of view on any given subject if they first do not subscribe to your sociopolitical desires. I better understand why your global views and scope are so narrowly defined.

And it’s simply ludicrous for you to condemn others in how they justify their negative actions and attitudes while you try so hard to justify your anger and demeaning ridicule toward those who fail to share your chosen sociopolitical views. In other words you are exactly what you have described in others in which you claim to hold such disdain toward. You are part of the reason violence and wars begin. It’s frightening how you are so completely oblivious to it.

Good luck with spreading the peace and understanding you desire. I’ll be amongst those doing the harder part which keeps you alive.”

Your comment is Orwellian nonsense. I hold the narrow global view that inflicting misery and death can be avoided, and this misery and death is caused by a horrendous, primitive, centricity. Is that simplistic? No, it’s simple and true.

Old fashioned concepts of right and wrong get lost in pseudo intellectual theories of real politics. Those who subscribe to the philosophy of real politics seem to believe that those who have had the longest lasting positive impact on the human condition were admirable, but somewhat foolish, and that they lacked a more superior understanding of the realities of life. The more superior understandings of the realities of life, as espoused by those who believe in real politics, only perpetuate the miseries. I wish you no harm, but I’d like to drive a stake through the heart of what you seem to believe.

Somehow, you’re equating my disgust with your views, with the horrors of war. You’re going to need a very special scale to make the two balance equally. Perhaps my disgust for your views equates with the cries of a wounded, orphaned, child standing in the rubble of her former home in your mind, if so, you’ve got a very self centered mind. Have I proved your point? Yes I have, in your self centered mind.

If your work is going to keep me alive, my future doesn’t look real promising. Actually, I’m more concerned with the future of the young, and I’m not at all willing to leave their future in your hands. So I’ll keep on doing the dirty work.

If I have any luck, someone else will see the truth of what I’m telling you, and not fall for your arrogant and unfounded superior moral stance. Is my moral stance arrogant and unfounded? Ask the child.

Your fifth source “U.N.E.P. Environment in the news” also makes no mention of the “Tens of billions.”
It does state,

“But water itself is only part of the story; people who have moved back to the area also need a secure supply of clean water, sanitation, and a reliable food supply.

Using an $11m donation from Japan, Unep is working alongside agencies of the current Iraqi government to install these services.”

This source is primarily devoted to global environmental concerns, and man made catastrophes occurring all over this world, many of them more severe in environmental and human costs than the draining of the marshlands. For example, the 2.5 million refugees in Pakistan, from Afghanistan, dwarf the 350,000 who were displaced by draining the marshlands in Iraq.

Your sixth source “Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty” also makes no mention of the “Tens of billions.” It is very brief and its most pertinent comment is the following,

“Saddam’s regime diverted waterways and burned reed beds in the areas, turning what had been a pristine wetland ecosystem into semi-desert and forcing most residents to flee. “

All your sources contain easily justifiable condemnation of Saddam Hussein’s draining of the marshlands, but none of these sites has provided proof of your unverifiable claim that you have stated is a “very real fact.” I will clearly, and humbly state, what I’ve known for decades; that being that Saddam Hussein is an all too typical murderous villain, and I’ll also humbly state that he, for all too typical unjustifiable reasons, wasted much needed resources, which could have been used to alleviate suffering, istead of creating suffering, something I’ve known since having seen the 60 minutes documentary regarding the marshlands.

Will you also humbly state that you’re previously stated claim,

“I’ll also not ignore the ‘very real fact’ that it was Saddam Hussein who spent ‘tens of billions of dollars’ on himself and his family” while children died of starvation and illness in massive numbers.”

was an hysterical falsehood, and an attempt to deflect from the real truth in the debate; that being that the first war in Iraq was responsible for the massive numbers of Iraqi children who died from illness and starvation, and that the factor that most contributed to the massive numbers of Iraqi children dying from starvation and illness was the sanctions (Madeline Albright)? Will you also humbly state that your brazen comment,

“I’m not in the habit of making any claim I cannot prove. I can prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that what I write is so.”
“Check my facts.”

has not been proven by the real facts?

All the deaths and misery that were caused by the first Gulf War, were caused by Saddam Hussein’s self justified reasons for the war, and by George Herbert Walker’s self justified demand that his ultimatum be immediately obeyed, and that Saddam’s request for negations regarding Iraqi withdrawal from Quait was unacceptable, and from the self justified domestic policies of Saddam, and from the self justified sanctions policies. What’s certain is that all this justification lead to incalculable suffering, and the deaths of 100s of thousands Iraqi children, and 100s of thousands of other deaths, along with continued and continuing insanity. Our justifications also provided justifications for our enemies.

Your first source from the “United Nations Environment Progamme” makes no reference to the “Tens of billions” you have asserted is a being “Very real fact”

“Nairobi/Paris, 23 July 2004 – A multi-million dollar project to restore the environment and provide clean drinking water in the Marshlands of Mesopotamia was announced today by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).”

It also reinforces my previous posting,
“During the 1990s, the wetlands were reduced to seven per cent of their original size due to numerous dam projects upstream in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.”

It also states:

“The Marshlands, considered by some to be the location of the Biblical Garden of Eden, were massively damaged in the late 20th Century, partly as a result of new dams on the Tigris and Eurphrates river systems and partly as a result of massive drainage operations by the previous Iraqi regime.”

Provides reference to a multitude of documents not accessible from this cite. Many of them relate to general climate considerations, and the documents that deal directly with the marshlands reference U.N.E.P. I was unable to find any reference to the “Tens of billions.” I’m not willing to spend the time required to research all these documents chasing one mythical detail. Are you? If so, please do.

Your third source, “Embassy of the United States, BAGHDAD IRAQ”

Also makes no mention of your “Tens of billions” it does offer the following.

“Waters feeding the marshlands were diverted for crop irrigation. By 1999, less than 10 percent of the marshlands remained intact, mostly along the southeastern border with Iran.”

“The two-year, $4 million project that ends in September is establishing infrastructure and agricultural assistance programs that will help the Iraqi government manage the restoration of the marshland ecosystem through strategic re-flooding.”

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working on a $500,000 project to develop a hydrologic water-management model that will help reconstruct the historic flow of water from the Euphrates and Tigris river basins into the marshes.”

“At the same time, DAI has allocated $250,000 to the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources to create a soil and water laboratory that will analyze the effects of the re-flooding on the marshlands.”

Your fourth source “Defend America, ‘U.S. Department of State news about the War on Terrorism’”

Makes no reference to the “Tens of billions;” it does the include the following.

“The process of restoring the marshlands will cost more than the drying process. … We need to develop better irrigation techniques and work with neighboring countries,” he said.

Katie said that since much of the water for the marshes originates in Syria and Turkey, his group is working with those countries to allow more water-flow into Iraq.”

It also states:

“The biggest impact on the marshes came at the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991. Hussein gave the order to drain the marshes completely in retribution for the Shia uprising against the regime. The huge cost of draining the marshes put a burden on Iraq’s economy, and the environmental impact on the marshes’ eco-system was disastrous. Certain types of birds, fish and plants normally found in the marshes rapidly disappeared.”

The most damning part of the above paragraph is, “The huge cost of draining the marshes put a burden on Iraq’s economy…” but it does not cite that cost as being “Tens of billions” as you have asserted as being “A very real fact.”